About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
mr. brennan began his testimony, five code pink protesters did their thing one after another, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, in a single several-minute span. >> thank you. a heartfelt thank you also goes to my family in new jersey, especially my 91-year-old mother dorothy, my 92-year-old father owen, who emigrated from iermd nearly 65 years ago -- >> and mr. brennan, if you don't know who they are, i have a list. i have a list of all the names and the -- >> all right. i'm going to -- we're going to halt the hearing. i'm going to ask that the room be cleared and that the code pink associates not be permitted to come back in. we've done this five times now and five times are enough. >> five times will be plenty for you code pink associates. associates? i wonder if that is the hierarchy. senator feinstein today clearly wanted to get on with it, right? regardless of how you feel about the cia or killing people outside war zones or john brennan or the senate or for that matter dianne feinstein you kind of have to tip your hat to the code pink folks just on operational grounds, right? i mean,
civilian casualties within those? any concept? collateral damage? >> it wasn't the best part of mr. brennan's testimony yesterday, there has been significant collateral damage. the numbers are obviously -- whether it's hundreds or thousands -- the real question is, you've got to ask yourself on a cost benefit way, yes. at times innocents are going to be hurt. you've got to ask yourself don rumsfeld's questions. what you are accomplishing against terrorists, is that to some extent offset by the fact that you're alienating populations and governments with whom you have to work? that's the question we have to constantly ask ourselves, this cost benefits test. >> john, it's donny. if we got to the point and as i listen to mr. brennan, where we were going to do a drone strike against an american citizen, it would be the most desperate of times, and i don't want to have to go through a fisa court, and i've got no problem with them doing it. >> i understand your feeling on that. the issue here is -- gene robinson in his column today raises a good point. he says if this were going on under george w
, robin, in what you just heard? is that a consistent narrative from mr. brennan? >> not completely obviously, saying sometimes it produces information and sometimes it isn't -- >> not enough to derail this nomination. >> i don't think so. i think brennan probably compared with hagel is going to be a breeze to get through, but these are issues. and this is what this testimony actually illustrates, that really tug at the heartstrings of americans. we have had a traumatic decade. we have come away questioning tactics of torture, the use of guantanamo bay. the legal justification not fully understood. the drone issue still not fully explained because it's so secret. there's still a lot the american public is struggling to understand. >> dan, one reaction that i have relative to the whole standard of when we could take out even an american is, you know, be careful before you make your decision based on the occupant of the white house because precedent is being set here, and whatever the drill might be for today could apply to president clinton in 2016. it could apply to president rubio
. >>steve: it is mr. brennan's appearance before this committee today for his confirmation that lawmakers feel if we're ever going to get answers regarding the program, it's now. that's why it is extraordinary and probably a little coincidental that they would go ahead and relent and release it to the lawmakers today. >>brian: here's what's good about it. we're going to get real questions from both sides rather than what a great guy you are, what a horrible person you are, and speech making. wur going to get both sides probing john brennan in a respectful way, i believe, to legitimize some of the tactics when he was working counterterror for the center. charles krauthammer looks at constitutional hurdles and why in some ways this could be challenging. >> they want to pretend you can only hit an american al qaeda operative who is an imminent threat and define him in a threat out of existence by saying al qaeda is continually hatching plots, so he's always, all day and all night, an imminent threat, i.e., that criteria is meaningless. i think we really have to have an effort in the congress
government is as nontransparent as this. >> tomorrow mr. john brennan is set to come to capitol hill for a senate confirmation hearing to potentially become the next director of the c.i.a. he was president obama's number one counterterrorism advisor oz the drone program grew and he'll likely get lot of questions about this secret memo. so yesterday the white house explained how drone strikes against american citizens can help protect the homeland. >> we have acknowledged, the united states, that sometimes we use remotley piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al-qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the united states and to save american lives. we conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, prevent future attacks and save american lives. the strikes are legal. they are ethical and they are wise. >> the only time president obama has ordered a strike against an american citizen that we know about was back in 2011 when anwar al-awlaki and kahn were killed in yemen. >> brian: his son was killed, too.
john brennan expeditiously. >> but white house counter terrorism advisor john brethren nap described the architect as the expanded drone campaign. the target adding al qaeda leaders overseas crosshairs of republicans democrats. mr. obama's traditional supporters on the left. >> the united states took a program that had very -- used very minimally by president bush. now they are over 3,000 civilians who have been killed in this -- in this program. >> these documents released by e intelligence committee in advance of tomorrow's hearing, show john brennan was questioned by federal investigators as part of two national security leak investigations. brennan claims he is only considered a witness in those cases and not the subject of the investigators, shep. >> shepard: analysts have said, catherine, he will face tough questioning tomorrow on torture as well. >> well, another line of questioning at the hearing will likely focus on brennan's 2007 statement that the controversial cia program, which included the waterboarding of 9/11 architect khalid sheikh mohammed saved lives. brennan later
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)